Reproducibility of the assessment of the Fränkel manoeuvre for the evaluation of sagittal skeletal discrepancies in Class II individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The Fränkel manoeuvre is a procedure by which the mandible of Class II individuals is postured forward in dental Class I relationship. The evaluation of the resulting facial profile provides information concerning the components determining the sagittal discrepancy. Data concerning the reproducibility of its assessment are not available. This study aimed to evaluate the intra-observer and inter-observer reproducibility of the assessment of the manoeuvre and to assess whether the amount of clinical experience affects its reproducibility. METHODS: Two lateral photographs, one in centric occlusion, and the other with the mandible postured forward (Fränkel manoeuvre) of 100 Angle Class II individuals aged between 9 and 13 years were evaluated by six orthodontists (T0). Each examiner was asked whether the facial profile worsen or not with the manoeuvre after being trained by an expert orthodontist. The test was repeated after 2 weeks interval (T1). Intra-observer and inter-observer agreement were evaluated by computing the Cohen's K. RESULTS: The agreement (K values) between observations (T0 versus T1) for each examiner ranged from 0.49 to 0.72. The overall agreement was 0.65 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.54-0.75]. The agreement in the group with less clinical experience was 0.61 (95% CI = 0.46-0.76), while it was 0.68 (95% CI = 0.53-0.83) in the more experienced group. The amount of clinical experience did not affect intra-observer agreement (P = 0.50). The overall agreement between the examiners and the trainer was 0.74 (95% CI = 0.65-0.83) and 0.73 (95% CI = 0.64-0.83) at T0 and T1 respectively. CONCLUSION: The assessment of the Fränkel manoeuvre is reproducible and it is not influenced by the amount of clinical experience.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.036 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".